HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Ot:hockey alberta eliminates body checking in peewee division

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-09-2013, 03:20 PM
  #201
Skm
Registered User
 
Skm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 1551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Coleman View Post
The flip side here is that if you allow body checking in PeeWee, why not have it all the way down to Initiation?
Not sure if I'm understanding the argument/dicussion correctly but by peewee everyone should be decent enough at skating. In initiation most kids can barely stand up on skates.

The difference in skating between bantam and peewee (at least at the house league/non rep) level is not that large.

Skm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 03:23 PM
  #202
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,828
vCash: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
At some point they have to. Everyone has a different threshold. Where is it? For you it might be hockey or seatbelt or gun rights. Others might be alcohol, gambling or traffic laws or situations like Ohio. Of course that's a huge exaggeration! We're not talking about that, but the point is somewhere government HAS to step in a say "here's the line." They do it with alcohol, tobacco, telecom companies, broadcasting standards, driver's licence, seat belts, speeding, taxes...need I go on? Its everywhere. You're not comfortable with that, lots of us are. No individuals rights or standards are more important than any others, but at a certain point someone has to decide. Elected officials have been chosen to do that, to step in and make a decision for (what they believe) is the greater good of society. Its called democracy.
No. Its called Fascism (or Totalitarian Democracy if you prefer). People dont need to be told what to do in every area of their lives. Ive lived just fine without seatbelt legislation, bicycle helmut laws, smoking bans, child car seats, body contact in hockey, etc, etc.

Quote:
The argument is not hitting is an unaccpetable risk.
Of course it is. If it were an acceptable risk, there would be no impetus to legislate it out of the game.

Quote:
The argument is two parts:
1) There is no statistical evidence to support the belief that introducing hitting earlier reduces the rate of injuries and concussions. The belief that introducing it early teaches kids to have their head up is unsubstantiated. I would add that keeping your head up is a necessary skill in hockey whether there is hitting or not. Can't find the open man or open ice or five hole if you're head is in your skates. Therefore it is necessary for all kids to learn the skill of having their head up regardless of body contact.
That isnt an argument, that is a conclusion based on a false negative.


Quote:
2) Entry into adolescence is a critical period in brain development (11-13 years). When you introduce contact there is a spike in injuries and concussions. Why not give the kids as much time to develop as possible before introducing the higher risk behaviour. They're not trying to eliminate ALL risk. There just trying to protect the ones most vulnerable and most susceptible.
Is brain development in 14-18yr olds non-critical?

This is a ****ing ridiculous argument. If concussion risk is deemed too high and injurious at one level, why not all levels?

Is that not the end game here?

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 03:41 PM
  #203
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
If concussion risk is deemed too high and injurious at one level, why not all levels?

Is that not the end game here?
It may be the end game. It may not. Would it not be a good idea to at least make the attempt to improve player safety rather than say..."The amount of concussions in minor hockey is acceptable. We see no reason to change."

In discussions with several hockey parents over the last 24 hours, the feedback is positive with the decision. Three of us have kids in Peewee. Two with initiation kids.

The one person I talked to that didn't like it played AAA and that small kids going to Bantam would be at severe risk. That I couldn't disagree with.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 04:16 PM
  #204
gqmixmaster
Registered User
 
gqmixmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 926
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilception View Post
At peewee I dont think they are really hitting hard enough to hurt each other anyways?
I didnt start skating until I was 12 and at the same time I joined peewee hockey of course in the lowest division. I was 6'2 at the time. I got run over by this kid who was maybe 5'9 into the boards (because I could barely skate) and I was pissing blood after the game. I remember kids getting hit from behind having concussions, I saw a broken leg due to a collision, lots of kids getting winded etc.

The kids are like flying missiles when they go to hit, it can hurt pretty bad actually.

gqmixmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 04:22 PM
  #205
timekeep
Registered User
 
timekeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneypuck View Post
Looks as though Hockey Alberta is concerned about drop off at this level. How do we know this isn't just a cash grab to keep kids and their parents in the game paying through the nose to give little Joey something to do for another 2 or 3 years.

Appears to me to be more cash grab than a safety issue.
You are on to them, they have been seeing a huge decrease in registration in the second yr of Peewee, this has been an issue for some years now. They will see a huge increase in Peewee players staying for the full two years and most likely quitting in Bantam now.

Hockey is getting expensive and it not automatic that every 5 year will play hockey now.

timekeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 04:30 PM
  #206
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,828
vCash: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
It may be the end game. It may not. Would it not be a good idea to at least make the attempt to improve player safety rather than say..."The amount of concussions in minor hockey is acceptable. We see no reason to change."

In discussions with several hockey parents over the last 24 hours, the feedback is positive with the decision. Three of us have kids in Peewee. Two with initiation kids.

The one person I talked to that didn't like it played AAA and that small kids going to Bantam would be at severe risk. That I couldn't disagree with.
I find it hard to reconcile that hitting is too dangerous for Pee wee, but its ok for Bantam. That makes very little sense to me. At the very least all minors should be protected, meaning no hitting for any minor hockey level, including major junior.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 04:48 PM
  #207
timekeep
Registered User
 
timekeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
It may be the end game. It may not. Would it not be a good idea to at least make the attempt to improve player safety rather than say..."The amount of concussions in minor hockey is acceptable. We see no reason to change."

In discussions with several hockey parents over the last 24 hours, the feedback is positive with the decision. Three of us have kids in Peewee. Two with initiation kids.

The one person I talked to that didn't like it played AAA and that small kids going to Bantam would be at severe risk. That I couldn't disagree with.
The way this is going there won't be hitting bantam soon.

After talking with fellow former parents of AAA and AA players, our kids are now 18+, we think that the players will be worse off now, once comes to the higher levels. The consensus was that hitting isn't necessary at all levels. Us Neanderthals, figured a better option would have been to have hitting for the top teams. Reasons for this option:
- parents would have the choice if they wanted contact or not
- have tryouts for these teams, associations would ultimately make the decision on who makes the team. And specific player's safety could be a determining factor
- all the rest we be tiered accordingly, and a level of competitiveness could be maintained and no body checking
- smaller towns that would have only two teams would have to split their teams


- this isn't perfect, but just some ideas, I still think the best alternative was to try single age groups for a few seasons.


Last edited by timekeep: 05-09-2013 at 05:10 PM. Reason: and no body checking
timekeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:03 PM
  #208
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
I find it hard to reconcile that hitting is too dangerous for Pee wee, but its ok for Bantam. That makes very little sense to me. At the very least all minors should be protected, meaning no hitting for any minor hockey level, including major junior.
People have studies that state that PQ and AB have the same injury stats in Bantam, while only AB has hitting in Peewee. This suggests no extra injury is there by not having hitting in Peewee. I don't have the study, only that it has been mentioned several times.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:05 PM
  #209
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,828
vCash: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
People have studies that state that PQ and AB have the same injury stats in Bantam, while only AB has hitting in Peewee. This suggests no extra injury is there by not having hitting in Peewee. I don't have the study, only that it has been mentioned several times.
One would think that no hitting in Bantam = less head injuries. No?

So it stands to reason that they take it out of that level too.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:08 PM
  #210
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timekeep View Post
The way this is going there won't be hitting bantam soon.

After talking with fellow former parents of AAA and AA players, our kids are now 18+, we think that the players will be worse off now, once comes to the higher levels. The consensus was that hitting isn't necessary at all levels. Us Neanderthals, figured a better option would have been to have hitting for the top teams. Reasons for this option:
- parents would have the choice if they wanted contact or not
- have tryouts for these teams, associations would ultimately make the decision on who makes the team. And specific player's safety could be a determining factor
- all the rest we be tiered accordingly, and a level of competitiveness could be maintained
- smaller towns that would have only two teams would have to split their teams


- this isn't perfect, but just some ideas, I still think the best alternative was to try single age groups for a few seasons.
But there doesn't seem to be a negative impact in jurisdictions that have already eliminated hitting in Peewee.

And as someone who has a son in Peewee, I agree that hitting in Edmonton would be best suited for Tiers 4 and higher.

My goal isn't to have hitting out of hockey. I know Atom kids that learned to skate in first year of hockey. To suggest that someone in Tier 8 Peewee needs to have bodychecking is downright ludicrous. The biggest complaints about this is the people that have kids that are elite or former elite players.(Saw Valk on Twitter complaining about the new rules)

So maybe they could lobby to have higher levels have contact.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:08 PM
  #211
Skm
Registered User
 
Skm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 1551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
People have studies that state that PQ and AB have the same injury stats in Bantam, while only AB has hitting in Peewee. This suggests no extra injury is there by not having hitting in Peewee. I don't have the study, only that it has been mentioned several times.
So via that logic, we are removing hitting from peewee for the purpose of aligning ourselves with Quebec? Why not do one better and remove hitting all together? Edit: similar to what IATL just said 2 replies back.

Maybe I'm not getting it but I feel like Jimmy Mcnulty in saying **** the "numbers" and "stats".

Skm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:10 PM
  #212
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
One would think that no hitting in Bantam = less head injuries. No?

So it stands to reason that they take it out of that level too.
Unless they feel that injury rates take a fairly steep decline based on the improved skills of players as they get older. I am not suggesting that it is or isn't the right answer. (Even the new rule) I am saying that lesser skilled players do not need to have bodychecking to enjoy the game.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:11 PM
  #213
timekeep
Registered User
 
timekeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
But there doesn't seem to be a negative impact in jurisdictions that have already eliminated hitting in Peewee.

And as someone who has a son in Peewee, I agree that hitting in Edmonton would be best suited for Tiers 4 and higher.

My goal isn't to have hitting out of hockey. I know Atom kids that learned to skate in first year of hockey. To suggest that someone in Tier 8 Peewee needs to have bodychecking is downright ludicrous. The biggest complaints about this is the people that have kids that are elite or former elite players.(Saw Valk on Twitter complaining about the new rules)

So maybe they could lobby to have higher levels have contact.
Sorry, I forgot to add that the lower tiers would not have body checking.

timekeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:12 PM
  #214
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skm View Post
So via that logic, we are removing hitting from peewee for the purpose of aligning ourselves with Quebec? Why not do one better and remove hitting all together? Edit: similar to what IATL just said 2 replies back.

Maybe I'm not getting it but I feel like Jimmy Mcnulty in saying **** the "numbers" and "stats".
No, I am saying that data supports that there is no increase in injury risk in Bantam by not having hitting in Peewee.

The aligning with Quebec comment is way out in left field.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:16 PM
  #215
fiftymissioncap
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
One would think that no hitting in Bantam = less head injuries. No?

So it stands to reason that they take it out of that level too.
I believe it was stated earlier in this thread that one of the studies done shows that peewee aged kids are more likely to get a concussion because their neck muscles are not developed enough to protect themselves from a whiplash concussion.

Someone posted the idea of a minor and major bantam levels. I like that idea because first year bantam players all start learning to hit together and if the studies are correct, their bodies have grown and matured enough that the risk of whiplash concussions are at a reduced level.

fiftymissioncap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:17 PM
  #216
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,828
vCash: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
Unless they feel that injury rates take a fairly steep decline based on the improved skills of players as they get older. I am not suggesting that it is or isn't the right answer. (Even the new rule) I am saying that lesser skilled players do not need to have bodychecking to enjoy the game.
I would guess that as the players get older/bigger/stronger that the head injury rates would be higher, or at the very least the same, not less.

Ive been a proponent of offering both contact and non-contact options for everyone. I see no good reason not too, as long as there are enough participants in each stream to make it viable.

Again, why are we only protecting pee wee players? If head injuries are significant enough at that level to remove hitting from their game, why not at other levels?

Do you believe the head injury guru's are going to be satisfied with removing hitting from pee wee? Im thinking they want to see it gone altogether, at all levels.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:19 PM
  #217
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timekeep View Post
The way this is going there won't be hitting bantam soon.

After talking with fellow former parents of AAA and AA players, our kids are now 18+, we think that the players will be worse off now, once comes to the higher levels. The consensus was that hitting isn't necessary at all levels. Us Neanderthals, figured a better option would have been to have hitting for the top teams. Reasons for this option:
- parents would have the choice if they wanted contact or not
- have tryouts for these teams, associations would ultimately make the decision on who makes the team. And specific player's safety could be a determining factor
- all the rest we be tiered accordingly, and a level of competitiveness could be maintained
- smaller towns that would have only two teams would have to split their teams


- this isn't perfect, but just some ideas, I still think the best alternative was to try single age groups for a few seasons.
Yah that won't cut it at all. How many associations would be sued out the ass when someones kid goes down with a severe concussion.

They'll spend all their time bottle driving to pay the lawyers.

I'm not sure why people think the top teams should be allowed to be put at risk. What just so the 1% or less AA and AAA players have a better shot at the NHL?
Is there data to support better hockey players get less severe injuries?


What happens in the QMJHL? Do players from the Nova Scotia destroy the kids from Quebec when they meet in the QMJHL? Those Nova Scotia kids get to body check at peewee (for now). They must tear the Quebec kids apart going by this logic.

Do more Quebec Junior players get hurt compared to Nova Scotia players per capita? therefore justifying this theory that early introduction to body checking somehow protects them in later years.

I have a feeling they're finding out it doesn't. Sounds nice when your bs'ing around the water cooler though.

Looks like we'll get our chance to see.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/...356/story.html

Saskatchewan is of the mind set to start it earlier.

We'll find out in about 10 or so years I guess when those bodychecking Atoms show up in Junior hockey and start crushing the Alberta kids.

Lacaar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:20 PM
  #218
Skm
Registered User
 
Skm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 1551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
No, I am saying that data supports that there is no increase in injury risk in Bantam by not having hitting in Peewee.

The aligning with Quebec comment is way out in left field.
Not really:

1) People are arguing that injury rates DO NOT increase if hitting is introduced in bantam.
2) Therefore, I am assuming the point of removing hitting from peewee is to reduce the TOTAL number of injuries (ie. if Quebec and Alberta have the same injury rates from bantam onwards then the only excess ones in AB will be from peewee)
3) Continuing this logic, if we want to reduce the total injury rate even further, then we should just remove hitting from all levels and do one better than Quebec.

Skm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 05:22 PM
  #219
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
I would guess that as the players get older/bigger/stronger that the head injury rates would be higher, or at the very least the same, not less.

Ive been a proponent of offering both contact and non-contact options for everyone. I see no good reason not too, as long as there are enough participants in each stream to make it viable.

Again, why are we only protecting pee wee players? If head injuries are significant enough at that level to remove hitting from their game, why not at other levels?

Do you believe the head injury guru's are going to be satisfied with removing hitting from pee wee? Im thinking they want to see it gone altogether, at all levels.
I think that as a non conspiracy theorist, that if Hockey Alberta figured that taking hitting out of peewee would impact negatively on participation, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't think that the "Head injury" lobby will stop at Peewee and may try to lobby further. The association in this case likely agrees with the lobby at this level, but I do think they feel that the hitting reduces the number of participants. That may be the underlying reasoning.

Slats432 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 06:39 PM
  #220
harpoon
Registered User
 
harpoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
Don't know. My kids don't play those sports because of the contact and they've shown no desire to play. They play soccer (some incidental contact), mountain bike and swim.
Bikes are really dangerous you know ....
Bet more kids injured every year "mountain biking" than playing hockey.

harpoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 08:21 PM
  #221
Billybaroo*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by harpoon View Post
Bikes are really dangerous you know ....
Bet more kids injured every year "mountain biking" than playing hockey.
Way, way, way more dangerous.
I guarantee you that if one looked at the number of hours kids mountain bike/bmx to hockey games, the injury rates, including concussions, wouldnt be anywhere close. The bikers would be far, far higher.


Last edited by Bryanbryoil: 05-10-2013 at 12:59 PM. Reason: Adds nothing to the conversation
Billybaroo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 08:24 PM
  #222
Tedi
Registered User
 
Tedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,603
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by timekeep View Post
It doesn't differ, did you read what I quoted, that person stated that it 'entering a division where everyone is learning to hit'. This is not the case in Bantam or Peewee. One of my earlier suggestions is have single age groups.
Oops...my bad, thought you were tired or drunk And the suggestion of one age group isn't a bad idea, my son played in REM15 in his first year midget. Makes a much easier transition for kids going into midget rep hockey.

Tedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 08:54 PM
  #223
KarmaPolice
Masterdebater
 
KarmaPolice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In Limbo
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,127
vCash: 999
Send a message via MSN to KarmaPolice
Kids don't need to be throwing their weight around at that age. If they're good enough to make it to higher leagues as they get older, then there's more then enough time to learn how to throw body checks. They're just young kids, Jesus...

KarmaPolice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 09:03 PM
  #224
Tedi
Registered User
 
Tedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,603
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slats432 View Post
I think that as a non conspiracy theorist, that if Hockey Alberta figured that taking hitting out of peewee would impact negatively on participation, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't think that the "Head injury" lobby will stop at Peewee and may try to lobby further. The association in this case likely agrees with the lobby at this level, but I do think they feel that the hitting reduces the number of participants. That may be the underlying reasoning.
Do you really believe that participation would drop off because there is no bodychecking? If anything I think this new ruling will increase enrollment into peewee hockey.

Tedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 10:07 PM
  #225
hyster110
Registered User
 
hyster110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 805
vCash: 500
i would be interested to find out how in depth the study went, and if it differentiated between injuries directly related to checks, and injury that result from thinks like, normal falls, accidents, bad turns, ect

hyster110 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.